Wilson Building Bulletin: D.C.'s budget woes continue

The weather may be looking up, but the news about D.C.’s budget certainly isn’t.

On Wednesday, Moody’s Ratings downgraded D.C.’s credit, citing ongoing cuts to the federal workforce, declining commercial real estate values, and possible changes to Medicaid funding that could cost the city loads of money. 

In plain English, this means that one of the three main credit ratings agencies is turning slightly sour on D.C.’s economy and creditworthiness, which could potentially make it more expensive for the city to borrow money as it regularly does to pay for infrastructure and big construction projects. (D.C. currently owes $5.6 billion on this type of borrowing.) 

Now, the news may have more of a political sting than an immediate financial impact. For years the city has celebrated a top credit ratings (it was just in 2018 that Moody’s gave D.C. top marks) — especially given that during the worst of its financial crisis 30 years ago it was considered a very risky borrower. And even with the downgrade, D.C. is still in relatively good standing, a point D.C. CFO Glen Lee was quick to make in the wake of the news.

“This rating change is not the result of a degradation of the District’s strong governance and effective fiscal management practices. Rather, it stems from broader federal decisions regarding its workforce and spending, and economic trends that are beyond the District’s control and are having a disproportionate impact on the local economy,” he said.

Still, if D.C.’s borrowing costs go up, it could mean that fewer big construction projects would be funded in the annual budget. And we know that the budget is already a bit of a mess, in part because of a congressional snafu that put D.C. in a $1.1 billion hole and forced city officials to start looking for places to cut spending. (The House seems unlikely to do anything to fix the problem it created, at least not anytime soon.)

The state of the city’s budget should be more clear soon, though, as Mayor Muriel Bowser is expected to unveil her spending plan for 2026 within the next two weeks.

Does some secrecy make for better government?

About 15 years ago, D.C. lawmakers said that too much of the city’s business was done behind closed doors and passed a bill requiring much more of it to be done in public. But this week, some lawmakers argued the city might benefit from shuttering some of those doors again. Which ones and when, though, defied easy answers.

The debate was over a permanent version of the bill passed earlier this month allowing the council to meet in private more often. The bill targeted the city’s Open Meetings Act, which broadly declares that public boards, commissions, and bodies – the council included – should do their work in the open except for limited situations. With the emergency bill, the council temporarily exempted itself from the act for everything but its legislative and committee meetings where votes are held. Lawmakers reasoned that in an era of fast-moving and unpredictable threats and opportunities – an aggressive new president, or the return of a certain football team to the city – they need more freedom to meet outside of the public’s glare.

The consensus from the half-dozen councilmembers who spoke? Too much open government isn’t necessarily a good thing.

“As chairman, I may want to gather councilmembers to discuss how to deal with congressional interference in our laws, or how to deal with the mayor’s failure to submit a budget on time, or what to do about a former member returning to the body. Rather than give two days notice and invite the press, I’ll simply forego this consensus-building tool. Rather than discuss sensitive matters in a fishbowl, legislators will avoid the discussions altogether,” said Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, the bill’s main author.

“It just seems so odd that we as members of an elected body cannot for a moment have conversations of substance about policies unless we have somehow pre-notified the world that we’re going to have those conversations. I find that very difficult,” said At-Large Councilmember Anita Bonds, citing one principal point of contention: the current requirement that any time there’s a quorum of councilmembers present, their meeting has to be publicized and open for the public to attend. 

The council’s proposed bill would flip this on its head: unless a formal action like a vote is taking place, lawmakers would be free to meet, converse, and debate without letting the public know – or inviting it in. Not only would this streamline the council’s work and allow it to respond more quickly to challenges as they emerge, but proponents said it would improve governance by letting lawmakers get to know each other better. 

“This is an organism … and for it to function there needs to be trust among the members. There must be times in which you can discuss openly, without peering eyes, the topics of the day. Not taking official action; I believe that has to be done in public. But the ability to simply know each other as people, that opportunity to discuss and trust one another in a collegial setting, is invaluable,” said former At-Large Councilmember David Catania.

Critics of the bill, though, see it as a slippery slope.

“Open meetings requirements are a pain in the ass. I get it. It feels absurd, it feels inefficient, it is difficult,” conceded Josh Tauberer, a civic hacker and open-government advocate. “But the Open Meetings Act is the price we pay for creating an open society. Government bodies must deliberate in the open because the alternative is far worse, and this is not the time to recede. To stand strong against a capricious, authoritarian federal government you need to lead.”

Tauberer added that the city’s open meetings law was meant to open deliberations to public scrutiny, not just votes. As for the argument that the council would meet in private to better respond to threats to home rule from the White House and Congress, Ward 5 ANC Commissioner Karla Lewis said that private meetings themselves threaten home rule.

“Home rule was established to allow district residents to govern their own affairs. Having closed meetings excludes the 700,000 residents you say you are trying to protect. We want to see and hear what you’re doing. We elected you to represent us, and we want to know about the issues you are discussing – and if indeed you are representing our views, there is no need for secret meetings,” she said.

Niquelle Allen, director of the D.C. Office of Open Government, urged the council not to change the Open Meetings Act, largely because doing so would have impacts on every public board and commission currently required to abide by it. Instead, she said the council could narrowly amend its own rules of operation to more specifically outline additional exemptions where the public could be excluded. She also argued that the Open Meetings Act already offers a number of opportunities – some 14 in all – that allows the public to be shuffled out, a point that even some councilmembers seemed to be unaware of.

What comes of the bill remains to be seen, but Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen – one of only two councilmembers who voted against the emergency bill – said he wanted to ensure that any additional privacy the council carves out for itself is necessary and detailed. “I think we can strike the right balance by being more specific … rather than being overbroad,” he said.

Ultimately, though, the fate of the bill could come down to where one places the burden of trust. The original passage of the Open Meetings Act in 2010 was premised on the idea that the public can best trust a government it can see in action. Now, though, lawmakers seem to be saying the public should trust that they will only use their newfound privacy for better governance.

“I’m hoping that District residents can offer grace here … but also trust us given the difficult waters we are navigating right now. It’s not about secret meetings and backroom deals, but it’s truly to do the work of the council and protect home rule,” said Parker.

That didn’t go very far with Robert Becker, a member of the D.C. Open Government Coalition. “People need to be able to see what you’re doing,” he said, “in order to trust you.”

Ranked choice voting hits new snag

It was just a few months ago that D.C. voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 83, the ballot measure that could bring ranked choice voting to city elections as soon as next year. While its the fate will ultimately rest with the D.C. Council – which will have to decide whether to fund ranked choice voting’s implementation – there’s another simmering challenge … and it involves Wite-Out.

Last week, the D.C. Board of Elections fined the proponents of the ballot initiative almost $40,000 for improperly using the paint-like correcting liquid to make changes to some addresses for voters who signed petitions to put the issue on the ballot. (For a ballot initiative, proponents have to collect valid signatures from 5% of voters.) The initiative’s proponents say the mistakes were limited in scope and innocent in intent; they were simply trying to ensure that information listed next to a voter’s name matched what’s on the voter rolls. 

But opponents of ranked choice voting – including the D.C. Democratic Party – say the use of Wite-Out was widespread enough that the entire initiative should be declared null and void. The issue even reached the D.C. Court of Appeals on Thursday, where the lead critic of Initiative 83 asked the city’s highest court to order the elections board to dig into the use of Wite-Out and consider disqualifying many more voter signatures. 

There’s no timeline on a possible ruling, but the legal challenge could well provide cover for the council should it decide not to fund ranked choice voting – or just delay its implementation. And there’s one more thing lawmakers have to keep in mind: President Donald Trump really hated ranked choice voting, having recently called it “ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS TO DEMOCRACY.”

Fine work, kid

A few years ago, the D.C. Council debated whether to allow kids as young as 16 to register and vote. Well, someone seems to have taken that idea to heart.

Earlier this year, the D.C. Board of Elections fined a minor $6,000 for his repeated attempts to register and vote in the 2024 election – an effort that was uncovered after he emailed election officials demanding that his provisional ballot be counted. 

According to the board, the minor tried to register over a two-year period stretching from late 2022 up until the day of the 2024 election, each time submitting forms with a fake name, address, Social Security number, and birth year. His attempts were never successful, so instead he cast a provisional ballot during early voting last year, which requires the additional step of providing supporting documentation (like a valid D.C. address, or proof of age) after the fact. When he tried to offer that documentation, he told board staff in an email, “Voting is a constitutional right and I do not believe that a technical error should stop my vote from being counted.”

The board eventually declined to count the vote because of the very non-technical reason that he was underage when he cast it. “I have an email communication from your mother … I believe that the information is highly credible given that your mother would be expected to know your date of birth,” wrote a board attorney in an email to the minor. “The allegations are not appreciated,” he responded.

Appreciated or not, the board pursued the matter legally; making untrue statements on voter registration forms can fetch a $10,000 fine or jail time. The minor’s attorney tried to talk the board down, saying his “desire to vote was laudable.” Board staff disagreed, noting that he was accused of 21 separate violations of the city’s election laws and could be fined up to $42,000. Staff recommended a $12,000 fine, but the board’s three members agreed to halve that.

“Given the prevalence of unfounded attacks on the integrity of election administration organizations and the threats to our democratic institutions created by those attacks,” wrote the board in its final order, “we cannot treat lightly such a brazen effort to vote fraudulently.”